The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 Explained

The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 Explained

Accidents in shops, restaurants, rental properties, offices and private homes are often legally assessed under one key piece of legislation: the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

If you have been injured on someone else’s premises, this Act is likely to form the legal foundation of your claim.

The legislation establishes when a person or organisation that controls property can be held legally responsible for injuries suffered by visitors. It defines the standard of care required, the scope of that duty, and the circumstances in which liability may arise.

Understanding how the Act works is essential for determining:

  • Whether a duty of care was owed
  • Whether that duty was breached
  • Whether you may be entitled to compensation

Below, we explain the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 in clear, practical terms.

What Is the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 is the primary legislation governing accidents involving lawful visitors to premises in England and Wales.

It sets out the legal duty owed by those who control premises to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe when using the property for the purpose for which they are invited or permitted to be there.

In practical terms, this Act forms the legal foundation of most slip, trip and fall claims arising in:

  • Shops and supermarkets
  • Restaurants and cafés
  • Rental properties
  • Offices and workplaces
  • Public buildings
  • Private homes

If an occupier fails to take reasonable care and someone is injured as a result, the Act provides the legal basis for bringing a compensation claim.

What Duty Does the Act Impose?

Section 2 of the Act imposes what is known as the “common duty of care.”

This requires occupiers to take reasonable care to ensure visitors are reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be there.

This includes:

  • Maintaining floors and walkways
  • Repairing hazards within a reasonable time
  • Cleaning spillages promptly
  • Providing adequate lighting
  • Installing appropriate handrails
  • Maintaining car parks and external areas
  • Displaying warning signs where appropriate

The duty relates not just to the physical condition of the premises but also to activities carried out there.

What Does “Reasonably Safe” Mean?

The law does not require occupiers to eliminate all risks. Instead, the standard is reasonableness.

Courts consider factors such as:

  • The likelihood of injury
  • The seriousness of potential harm
  • The practicality of preventing the risk
  • The cost of precautions
  • Industry standards and common practice

For example:

  • A supermarket is expected to have regular inspection and cleaning systems in place due to high foot traffic.
  • A restaurant should address spillages quickly and mark wet floors clearly.
  • A landlord must repair reported defects within a reasonable timeframe.

Failing to carry out basic safety checks, inspections or maintenance may amount to a breach of duty.

Special Considerations Under the Act

Children

Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. The premises should be reasonably safe for a child of that age.

For example, features that might be safe for adults could present foreseeable risks to children.

Skilled Visitors

The Act recognises that certain visitors — such as tradespeople — may be expected to guard against risks ordinarily associated with their profession.

For example, an electrician may be expected to understand basic electrical risks.

However, this does not remove the occupier’s duty entirely.

Independent Contractors

If damage is caused by faulty work carried out by an independent contractor, the occupier may avoid liability only if it was reasonable to:

  • Entrust the work to the contractor, and
  • Believe the contractor was competent.

Simply hiring a contractor does not automatically remove responsibility.

Examples of Breach Under the 1957 Act

Examples of situations that may amount to a breach include:

  • Failing to implement a reasonable cleaning system in a supermarket
  • Ignoring repeated complaints about loose flooring
  • Allowing uneven paving stones to remain unrepaired
  • Not providing adequate lighting in stairwells
  • Leaving cables trailing across walkways
  • Failing to treat icy car parks in winter

Each case depends on the specific facts and whether the occupier took reasonable steps.

Causation: Linking the Breach to the Injury

It is not enough to show that a hazard existed. A claimant must prove that:

  1. The occupier breached their duty, and
  2. That breach caused the injury.

For example, if a spillage occurred seconds before a fall, and no reasonable inspection system could have prevented it, liability may not arise.

The timing and foreseeability of the hazard are often central to disputes.

Defences Available to Occupiers

Occupiers may defend claims by arguing:

  • A reasonable inspection system was in place
  • The hazard arose too shortly before the accident to be identified
  • Adequate warning signs were displayed
  • The visitor failed to take reasonable care for their own safety

In some cases, compensation may be reduced for contributory negligence if the injured person was partly responsible.

Why the 1957 Act Matters

The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 plays a vital role in promoting safety standards across public and private premises.

It ensures that:

  • Businesses implement inspection systems
  • Landlords maintain safe housing
  • Public spaces are properly managed
  • Visitors have legal protection if standards fall short

When the duty under the Act is breached and injury results, the injured party may pursue compensation for:

  • Pain and suffering
  • Loss of earnings
  • Medical treatment
  • Rehabilitation
  • Ongoing care needs
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 Explained

Why Choose NJS Law for Your Occupier Liability Claim?

When you are injured on someone else’s property, you need clear advice from solicitors who understand premises liability law and insurer tactics.

At NJS Law, we act exclusively for injured individuals. We understand the physical, financial and emotional impact of unexpected accidents.

When you instruct NJS Law, you can expect:

  • Clear, honest advice
  • Thorough investigation of liability
  • Strategic handling of insurers
  • Realistic assessment of compensation
  • No Win No Fee representation in appropriate cases

We handle claims involving:

  • Slip and fall accidents
  • Supermarket accidents
  • Restaurant and café injuries
  • Landlord negligence
  • Injuries at private homes
  • Accidents in public buildings

Every case is handled with care and attention to detail.

Speak To NJS Law Today

If you have suffered an injury on someone else’s property, early advice can make a significant difference.

Contact NJS Law today for a confidential discussion. We will explain:

  • Whether you have a valid claim
  • What your claim may be worth
  • How the No Win No Fee process works
  • The next steps to protect your rights

There is no obligation to proceed — just clear, professional advice.

Call us today or complete our online enquiry form to speak with a specialist occupier liability solicitor.

 

Your recovery matters. Your rights matter.
Let NJS Law help you secure the compensation you deserve.

We’re Here To Help

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Act apply to private homes?

Yes.

Homeowners owe a duty of reasonable care to lawful visitors, including friends, family members and delivery drivers.

However, the standard of care is judged in light of what is reasonable for a private homeowner rather than a commercial business.

What is meant by “lawful visitor”?

A lawful visitor is someone who has express or implied permission to be on the premises.

This includes customers, invited guests, tenants and individuals entering during normal business hours.

A trespasser would generally fall under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 instead.

 

Is an occupier automatically liable if someone is injured?

No.

The Act does not impose automatic liability.

A claimant must prove:

  • A duty existed
  • The duty was breached
  • The breach caused the injury

Accidents can occur even where reasonable systems were in place.

Are warning signs enough to avoid liability

Not always.

A warning must be sufficient to enable a visitor to be reasonably safe.

If the hazard could reasonably have been removed rather than merely warned about, a sign alone may not be enough.

The adequacy and placement of the warning are also important.

Does the Act require constant inspection of premises?

No, but it requires a reasonable inspection system.

The frequency and nature of inspections depend on:

  • The type of premises
  • The level of foot traffic
  • The risk profile of the environment

High-traffic retail environments require more frequent checks than low-use private areas.

What happens if the injured person was partly at fault?

If a visitor failed to take reasonable care for their own safety, compensation may be reduced under contributory negligence principles.

For example, running in a clearly marked wet area may reduce damages, but it may not eliminate liability entirely.

How long do I have to bring a claim under the 1957 Act?

In most cases, you have three years from the date of the accident (or date of knowledge) to issue court proceedings.

There are exceptions for children and individuals lacking mental capacity.

In most cases, claims are handled through insurance.

Businesses and homeowners carry liability insurance specifically for situations like this. A claim is made against the insurer — not the individual personally.

Professional organisations understand that accidents happen and that insurance exists to protect both parties.

CONTACT US

Get in touch using the form below or via the following methods:

Ask NJS

For fast, friendly affordable legal advice. Contact a member of our team today.

FAQ

For any questions we may be able to answer, discover our FAQ section.